alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS FINANCIAL  DATA  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
         EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIONX IMPLANTS, INC., AND IS
         QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              21,780
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                           111
<INVENTORY>                                          2,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    28,654
<PP&E>                                               1,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                         449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      33,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,900
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                17
<OTHER-SE>                                          29,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        33,682
<SALES>                                              4,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,513
<CGS>                                                  969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (281)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        506
<INCOME-TAX>                                           177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Marvin Alexander VALLE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70728.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

Marvin Alexander Valle, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.

Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Esquire, OIL, Lisa Morinelli, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*314MEMORANDUM **

Marvin Alexander Valle, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing Valle’s appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Valle contends that he was persecuted by gangs based on his resistance to gang recruitment, and alleges that his family constitutes a social group because his brother is a gang member. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Valle failed to establish that any harm he suffered, or fears, from gangs is on account of a protected ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (forced recruitment by persecutors seeking to fill their ranks is not necessarily persecution on account of political opinion); *Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 855-56 (9th Cir.2009) (petitioner who resisted gang recruitment did not establish persecution on account of social group or political opinion); *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.2008); *Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2002) (no compelling evidence the applicant was persecuted on account of his family membership).

Valle alleges that his due process rights were violated by the immigration judge, but the record demonstrates that Valle received a full and fair hearing. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (no due process violation where there is no showing of prejudice.)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 12378 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14

- cv - 20010

- FAM

VITALIL PYSARENKO, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus CARNIVAL CORP., d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines, Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( November 12, 2014 ) Before JORDAN , JILL PRYOR, and COX , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-12378 Date Filed: 11/12/2014 Page: 1 of 32 P ysarenko, the plaintiff in this case, filed a complaint against Carnival Corporation in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami

- Dade County, Florida. Pysarenko alleges that he worked as a karaoke host aboard Carnival’s ship, the “Carnival Dream.” He alleges that , as a result of negligence by Carnival, he injured his back carrying Karaoke equipment in the course of his duties on November 30, 2010 . He further alleges that Carnival failed to provide him with reasonable medical care and denied him the benefit of maintenance and cure. After removing the case to the Southern District of Florida, Carnival moved to dismiss the action and compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the employment contract between Pysarenko and Carnival. The d istrict court grant ed the motion. Pysarenko appeals, challenging that order

. Pysarenko presents five issues on appeal. First, Pysarenko argues that the choice

- of

- law clause in the arbitration provisions in his employment contract is void under 45 U.S.C. § 55. Second, he argues that the foreign

- forum clause in the arbitration provisions is void under 45 U.S.C. §§ 55 and 56. Third, he argues that the entire arbitration clause is void under 45 U.S.C. §§ 55 and 56 and 46 U.S.C. § 30104 . Fourth, he argues that the arbitration clause is void as against public policy because the choice

- of

- law and choi ce - of

- forum provisions operate in tandem as a prospective waiver of Pysarenko’s rights to pursue h is statutory remedies under United States law. Fifth, he argues that the arbitration clause is void as against

Case: 14-12378 Date Filed: 11/12/2014 Page: 2 of 33 public policy for attempting to deprive Pysarenko of his Jones Act rights to pursue his claims in state court and have them tried by a jury. Pysarenko admits that his fourth and fifth a rguments are contrary to the law of this circuit, and seeks only to preserve them for further review. ( Br. for App ellant at 2 ) . The district court, in a well

- reasoned opinion, carefully considered and properly rejected Pysarenko’s remaining arguments. ( Or der Granting Def.’s Mot. to Compel Arbitration and Den. Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, Doc. 37 at 3, 5, 9

– 10 )

. We conclude that the court did not err. W e affirm

. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-12378 Date Filed: 11/12/2014 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,910
<SECURITIES>                                    27,746
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (828)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,879
<PP&E>                                           5,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,955)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,453
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,195
<CGS>                                           24,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,984
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,980
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,767
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,767
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72


</TABLE>
# C_2021072EN.01002301.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Peikert (discount-apotheke.de)

(Case T-844/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark discount-ap*theke.de - Earlier EU word marks APODISCOUNTER and APO and earlier figurative marks apo-discounter.de, apo.co and apo.de - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 72/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug (lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Franz Michael Peikert (Offenbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Bruggmann, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 (Case R 2309/2018-5) in opposition proceedings between Apologistics and Mr Peikert.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apologistics GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
#### Husain Rafik KURJI, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-61005

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2009.

*130Christopher William Helt, Law Offices of Christopher W. Helt, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Don George Scroggin, Remi Adalemo, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Husain Rafik Kurji, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s). denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings on the basis that his motion to-reopen was untimely and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances meriting a sua sponte reopening of the proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Kurji also petitions this court for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen.

Kurji does not dispute the BIA’s determination that his motion to reopen was untimely and argues instead that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen because he did not become eligible for the adjustment of status justifying the reopening his proceedings until after the 90-day filing period set forth in § 1003.2(c)(2) had expired. He further contends that this court should toll the 90-day period because the BIA has been inconsistent and arbitrary in its decisions whether to sua sponte reopen proceedings in similar cases. However, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s refusal to sua sponte reopen Kurji’s proceedings. *See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey,*543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir.2008).

Although Kurji also argues that the BIA did not give sufficient reasons for its denial of his motion to reopen, the BIA’s reasons for denial were adequate. Kurji additionally argues that the BIA violated the “constitutional avoidance doctrine” by arbitrarily depriving him of his liberty and property interests when it denied his motion to reopen. However, this argument lacks merit because there is no liberty interest at stake in a motion to reopen. *See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales,*435 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir.2006). Kurji further asserts that his motion to reopen’s reliance on § 245 of the LIFE Act “may” trump § 1003.2(c)(2), which would transform his motion to reopen into a statutory, rather than a regulatory, right and thus “raise[ ] concerns” under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. However, he *131has failed to brief this issue, and thus he has abandoned it. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003); *Beasley v. McCotter,*798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.1986).

Accordingly, Kurji’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 17 

Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 

Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in 

the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress approves the renewal of the import restric4 tions contained in section 3(a)(1) and section 3A(b)(1) 

5 and (c)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act 

6 of 2003. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal  Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

*Name of Committee:*                     Safety and Occupational Health Study Section (SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).                

*Dates:*                     October 20-21, 2021.                

*Time:*                     11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT.                

*Place:*                     Teleconference.                

*Agenda:*                     The meeting will convene to address matters related to the conduct of Study Section business and for the study section to consider safety and occupational health-related grant applications.                

*For Further Information Contact:*                     Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26506; Telephone: (304) 285-5951; Email:                     *mgoldcamp@cdc.gov.*

                    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2021-15246 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43360

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JADEAN BINGHAM ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 382

Filed: February 10, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and order retaining jurisdiction, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for r espondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Jadean Bingham pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18

- 1401 and possession of a
controlled substance, I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court imposed concurrent unified
sentences of seven years with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction

. Bingham appeals
asserting that the district court a bused its discretion by retaining jurisdiction rather than placing
her on probation

. A trial court’s decision whether to retain jurisdiction is, like the original sentencing
decision, a matter committed to the trial court’s discretion. State v. Hernandez , 122 Idaho 227,
230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992). Retained jurisdiction allo ws the trial court an
extended time to evaluate a defendant’s suitability for probation. State v. Vivian , 129 Idaho 375,2

379, 924 P.2d 637, 641 (Ct. App. 1996). The purpose of retaining jurisdiction after imposing a

sentence is to afford the trial court additional time for evaluation of the defendant’s rehabilitation
potential and suitability for probation. State v. Atwood , 122 Idaho 199, 201, 832 P.2d 1134,
1136 (Ct. App. 1992).
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Ida ho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Bingham ’s judgment of conviction and order retaining jurisdiction are

affirmed.
# C_2020348EN.01001302.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/13

---

Order of the General Court of 2 July 2020 — Klein v Commission

(Case T-562/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Medical devices - Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 93/42/EEC - Safeguard clause procedure - Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device - Absence of a decision by the Commission - Out of time - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 348/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Christoph Klein (Großgmain, Austria) (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. C. Becker, F. Thiran and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act in the safeguard clause procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 and adopt a decision in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) in respect of the device Inhaler Broncho Air®.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Christoph Klein shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Christoph Klein shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
|   | 1.     | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                      |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|   | 2.     | The information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|   | /s/ Hua Meng                  |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Hua Meng                      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

----